Yes, they think they have the right to commit violence. I have no evidence that they think they have the right to do any more than beat people senseless.

Generalisation is only a fallacy if you actually generalise.

If I were to say that because some libertarians think I don't have rights, all of them must believe that, that would obviously be wrong.

But what I have said is that a significant number of libertarians believe I don't have rights, and since I can't find any Nazis or even Leftists who think they can gun down innocents, I would be better off supporting statism in mere self-defence.

I won't, but that doesn't change the fact that I am objectively better off with laws that protect my rights, even if the laws are shams and I don't really have any rights.

My deeper point is that you need to fix your philosophy. Jeff and Merklestan were able to find good libertarian justifications for defining someone out of rights.

You once said that Southerners lost the right to wave the Confederate flag with pride because they saw that it was being used as an instrument of racism and said nothing.

Your philosophy is more often used as an instrument of tyranny than legit Nazism.

That ought to concern you.

You think I'm quiet about my libertarian views?

Try getting me to shut up about them.

Merkelstan is a hard core, big government leftist. Burnsred isn't remotely libertarian. He supports the system we have now. He just wants to market it differently where instead of taxing income and calling it an income tax, we tax income but call income taxes use taxes. He technically would give you the option to buy property and live entirely on that property with no interaction with the outside world. But you step off your property once and you get what we have now because by stepping off your property, you consented to government. It's a distinction without a difference.

Jeff is a mean drunk you take too seriously. He says what he does because you react to it. It has nothing to do with libertarianism whether he is one or not.

Then you are trying very hard not to understand it. You have said repeatedly that the right to tax is part of the right to form a government.

No, I've been saying that people have a right to grant the governments they create the power to tax. Governments can't have rights, only granted powers. You keep getting that wrong, and it's important.

No, I've been saying that people have a right to grant the governments they create the power to tax. Governments can't have rights, only granted powers. You keep getting that wrong, and it's important.

Practically speaking, there's no difference between saying that government has a "power" and government has a "right." Watch some of those youtube clowns who make money off of baiting police officers to ask for ID so they can refuse and make the cops mad. Very frequently, the police officers says, "I have the right to ID you."

If the law indeed requires a citizen to provide ID in that situation, then the police officer does have that right. You can re-name that right a "power" if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the fact that government exercising that right/power eliminates the citizens right to be left alone.

As I said, the power to tax provides governments with the means (revenue) to accomplish the tasks they have been assigned to accomplish.

The granted taxing power is not a "proxy" for anything.

Ok, so where does the right to grant that power come from? Your first answer, that it comes from a right to form a government, is not correct. Because individuals cannot band together to create rights as a collective that they did not already possess as individuals.

The right to create a government that defends us from theft comes from our individual right to own property and to defend ourselves as you correctly stated. The right to form a government that itself engages in theft does not come from any individual right.

Practically speaking, there's no difference between saying that government has a "power" and government has a "right."

Perhaps, but philosophically and theoretically, rights and granted powers are very different. Rights are inalienable, granted powers can be removed. On a moral level, denial of rights is wrong, evil even, and removing granted powers is neutral or even good.

Language is important. "Progressives" know that, which is why they seek to confuse granted powers with rights, to establish a basis in language, which becomes a basis in thought, that governments have rights and individuals are granted privileges by governments.